SNIDER et al v. STERLING AIRWAYS, INC. et al, No. 2:2013cv02949 - Document 454 (E.D. Pa. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IS DENIED FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED IN THE PRECEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND TEH JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AND THE JUDGMENT ISSUED BY THE COURT ON 2/17/2017 AND ENTERED ON THE DOCKET ON 2/21/2017 SHALL BE AMENDED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN VIEW OF THE JURY'S FINDINGS AND VERDICT AS AFORESAID, THE CROSS-CLAIMS OF DEFENDANTS CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC. AND STERLING AIRWAYS, INC. AGAINST ONE ANOTHER ARE HEREBY DISMISSED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 8/29/2017. 9/5/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )

Download PDF
SNIDER et al v. STERLING AIRWAYS, INC. et al Doc. 454 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ELIZABETH C. SNIDER, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of DANIEL A. SNIDER, and LEE W. SNIDER, a minor, by his mother, ELIZABETH C. SNIDER : : CIVIL ACTION : : : NO. 13-CV-2949 : : : : : : : : : Plaintiffs vs. STERLING AIRWAYS, INC., and CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., Defendants ORDER AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2017, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendant Continental Motors, Inc. For New Trial and To Alter or Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for New Trial is DENIED for the reasons outlined in the preceding Memorandum Opinion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment is GRANTED and the Judgment issued by this Court on February 17, 2017 and entered on the docket on February 21, 2017 (Doc. No. 409) shall be AMENDED to add the following paragraph: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in view of the Jury’s findings and Verdict as aforesaid, the Cross-claims of Defendants Continental Motors, Inc. and Sterling Airways, Inc. against one Dockets.Justia.com another are hereby DISMISSED AS MOOT. BY THE COURT: s/J. Curtis Joyner J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.